valid main declaration

[junky_fellow]

Is the following valid in c++ ?

void main(void)
{

}

[Pep]

ju**********@yahoo.co.in wrote:

Is the following valid in c++ ?

void main(void)
{

}

Why don't you compile it and see?

[junky_fellow]

Pep wrote:

ju**********@yahoo.co.in wrote:

Is the following valid in c++ ?

void main(void)
{

}

Why don't you compile it and see?

I don't have a c++ compiler.

[Kai-Uwe Bux]

ju**********@yahoo.co.in wrote:

Is the following valid in c++ ?

void main(void)
{

}

No: the return type of main is int.
Best

Kai-Uwe Bux

[Alf P. Steinbach]

* Pep:

ju**********@yahoo.co.in wrote:

Is the following valid in c++ ?

void main(void)
{

}

Why don't you compile it and see?

The result of that approach depends on the compiler, although some compilers,
such as <url: http://www.comeaucomputing.com/tryitout/>, are fairly reliable
guides to what the standard is.

'void main' is not valid C++, and not valid C, and never has been.

The OP should check this group's FAQ, and also Bjarne Stroustrup's C++ FAQ.

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

[Peter_Julian]

<ju**********@yahoo.co.in> wrote in message
news:11*********************@g47g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
| Is the following valid in c++ ?
|
| void main(void)
| {
|
| }
|

check here...

http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/newbie.html

[Rui Maciel]

Pep wrote:

Why don't you compile it and see?

There are compilers which take a "creative license" from the standards when
compiling code. Because of that, some compilers compile code which isn't
standard compliant and should be broken to begin with. Therefore, the test
you suggested isn't the best way if a piece of code is valid or not.
Best regards
Rui Maciel
--
Running Kubuntu 5.04 with KDE 3.4.2 and proud of it.
jabber:ru********@jabber.org